Nelson Mandela and the Media’s Death Watch

by Nicole Symmonds, Urban Faith Contributing Writer | Jul 12, 2013 | Feature, Headline News |

It has been a little over a month since former president of South Africa and anti-apartheid leader Nelson Mandela entered the hospital due to health complications. Since then, mainstream and social media has kept tabs on his progress or lack thereof. Actually I am being nice; there has been less focus on his progress and more on his lack thereof. Mainstream media is functioning like a vitals monitor letting us know every time the leader has moved from stable to critical condition and back again while those on social media are awaiting his death so that they can celebrate his life. What has been most interesting to me as I watch the coverage of Mandela’s health is the emphasis on his demise over their hope for his life.

In the midst of the headlines boasting Mandela’s critical but stable condition, sites have also published stories on the life and times of the leader as if he had already left this earth. There are also conversations taking place about Mandela’s legacy, which are being fueled by internal conflict within the family. On social media many have taken to posting articles and past-tense reflections on Mandela. All of a sudden, people who have never so much as posted a “Happy Birthday Madiba!” are inspired by his life and prematurely mourning his death. Through social media, some people have turned Mandela into a cluster of meaning in order to indicate what he has meant in their life via a series of statuses, shared links, tweets, and images which transitions Mandela from flesh and blood to symbol. Some wait for Mandela to die so that they can exalt him as a symbol rather than celebrate his humanity now. This is primarily the work of social media, which creates an obsessive nature in even the most careful person. Once something tragic happens, we take to the keyboards to express ourselves and sometimes, without realizing it, we turn into grim reapers keeping watch over the dying through our actions online. But this is nothing new; we have seen what I like to call the “active memorialization” of the living before. It happens every time a celebrity or important public figure lands in the hospital or is found unconscious in their home and it is bolstered by our use of social media in tandem with mainstream media. My most recent memory of this is Michael Jackson’s death.

News broke that Jackson was found unconscious in his home and the world anxiously awaited news on his status. I remember sitting in a cubicle at my previous job and repeatedly hitting the refresh button to get updates on Jackson’s status. The entire office was held captive and we were all hitting refresh, which was partially a result of our needing to know so that we could figure out our editorial strategy and partially because there were some Jackson fans in the room. In the midst of this, my Facebook friends were posting their favorite Michael Jackson songs, reflecting on the first time they heard or saw Jackson and mourning his death before it was declared true. Sure we wanted him to live, but our activity was propelled by the thought of his death. Of course we all know how this ended, but I bring this up as another example of how we launch into overdrive the minute a beloved celebrity and/or public figure’s health is on the straits. It is no different with Mandela. Indeed many of us want him to live because we acknowledge the contributions that he made not only in South Africa but also to the world. We’ve watched him go from Robben Island and Pollsmoor to the presidency and everything surrounding those moments. We are vested in keeping our leaders alive but sometimes we are equally vested in their death—at times like these—so that we can memorialize them in our own special way in front of a captive audience. We don’t want to imagine the world without him and yet we are fully ready to mourn.

On one hand, being comfortable with death and dying is a good thing because it reminds us of our finite nature and the fact that we don’t have control over when we might leave this earth. But when we become obsessed with death to the point that we spend our lives predicting death and prematurely memorializing people, we lose sight of the gift we have right in front of us. It should not take the failure of someone’s health for people to come out of the woodworks to profess their love and admiration for them. We ought to love people while they are still here with us, give them their flowers now, share our admiration now, and celebrate them now, not as a cluster of meaning but as flesh and blood. Let our celebration of life not be propelled by thought of death. Let us speak of our beloved public figures, celebrities, and loved ones in the present tense as if we might never lose them so that our love and admiration may ring much more genuinely.

An “Illiberal” Liberalism: Why Black Folk Can’t Get Ahead

by Carl Ellis Jr. | Jul 4, 2013 | Feature, Headline News | 1 comment

While many people are loyal to a single news outlet in their homes, my wife and I take in a considerable amount of daily news from a variety of viewpoints – domestic and foreign, liberal and conservative, and much more. A few nights ago, Fox News featured an audience of African American citizens who identified themselves as “conservatives.”  What caught our ear was host Sean Hannity’s teaser for the show: he announced that African American conservatives “don’t enjoy freedom of speech” in their own country. With our curiosity piqued, we tuned in.

As we listened to the audience describe the disdain they experienced from fellow African Americans for their conservative affiliation, we realized that, experientially, we had much in common with them. We don’t personally subscribe to either the conservative or liberal ideology; we have as many agreements with both as we have disagreements.

Yet with few exceptions, one thing remains fairly consistent: when we express our disagreement with the prevailing “liberal” agenda, we’re often tagged with the same epithets that leftists use to besmirch these conservatives.

We seldom get this kind of reaction when we disagree with conservatives. We find this ironic, since by definition, to be “liberal” is literally to be “open to new ideas and willing to debate the issues.” However, our so-called “liberal” detractors have often proven themselves to be illiberal — that is, not open or willing to debate the issues.  Because they have a doctrinaire suspicion of differing ideas, they personally attack, insult, and marginalize those who disagree — especially conservatives.

It is clearer to me than ever, that we live in a climate dominated by political and social illiberalism. If I subscribe to the aforementioned definition of liberal, there is a question that must be asked before I can throw my hat into the conservative ring: “How ‘liberal’ will conservatives prove themselves to be?” While Mr. Hannity’s show covered much territory in its brief hour, this was the crucial question they failed to explore. I’m persuaded that without addressing the deeper dynamics, the current liberal/conservative debate will continue to be frustrated by the extremes on both sides.

A Tale of Three Cultures

In today’s America, there are at least three cultural distinctions; a dominant culture, a sub-dominant culture and a culture that’s mainstream. Before the late 1960’s, mainstream culture and White culture were virtually the same; Black culture was sub-dominant to the two. Today, mainstream culture is an amalgam of elements from both dominant and sub-dominant cultures.

As I see it, the greatest conflict lies in the differences between how the dominant and sub-dominant cultures operate.

The orientation of the dominant culture is toward preservation of things as they are; after all, our flawed human nature dictates a desire to cling to power. It’s not an American problem; the pattern can be seen globally as the dominant culture typically marginalizes many of the core concerns of the sub-dominant culture. Given our flawed human nature, this should come as no surprise.

The orientation of the sub-dominant culture is toward change; those without power want to gain it, and in order to do so, alteration of some sort must occur.

Historically, liberals have gravitated toward change while conservatives have gravitated toward preservation.

It’s Not What You Say, It’s How You Say It

It’s also significant to note the use of language in the discussion. While it is true that in general terms the values of African Americans are closer to conservatives, in terms of language and cultural orientation, Blacks respond more readily to liberals.

Today’s conservatives tend to use the language of the dominant culture, while today’s liberals tend to use the language of mainstream and/or sub-dominant culture.

Indeed, liberals have learned what conservatives have not: how to ‘speak’ to the African American diaspora, and by doing so appear to appeal to the community’s broad core concerns.

However, this appeal is often merely superficial, as it exists only on the level of language and visceral response. If we are to effect significant change, we as a community need to see beyond the language and deal with the substance.

If we dig more deeply beneath the surface of liberal rhetorical style, we would discover that not all public policies developed under the banner of “liberal” are helpful in addressing African American core concerns. In fact, some are destructive. Many who claim to be “liberal” push public policies that work against empowerment and encourage dependency, but the language they use makes it sound “right.” However, not everything that sounds right is right.

Similar things can be said of public policies that claim to be “conservative.” Yet conservatives still have many valuable contributions to make such as public policy proposals that take an empowerment approach.  Their message is muddied, however, by the dominant cultural language they employ. This makes their ideas sound mean-spirited and out-of-sync with African American concerns.

He who controls the language of the culture has the greatest power to shape the culture. As long as conservatives ignore this linguistic reality, attracting African Americans will prove to be a challenge; they will either continue with their current methods and insist that African Americans cross over to their ground (a difficult cultural leap for many), or write them off in favor of more easily persuaded minority communities.

I believe that if we are going to move forward as a community who has distinctive concerns in America, we need to evaluate political and social ideas as they stand on their own, without regard to their ideological association.

Principled Change

Like many liberals, sub-dominant independents like my wife and I have an interest in change. What we want to know is, according to what standard will change be effected? If change means bringing this society into greater fidelity with the transcendent core principles of true freedom, justice and equality – principles given by God in Scripture, then we have no problem standing with liberals in this cause.  This is principled change, and these principles have been the bedrock of our progress.  If, on the other hand, change necessitates discarding the core principles, then we oppose this ‘far-left’ brand of liberalism because this is change without principles, or unprincipled change.

Like many conservatives, sub-dominant independents like us have an interest in preserving our core principles. If this is the aim of conservatives, then we have no problem with standing with them in this cause. This is principled preservation.  If, on the other hand, “preservation” means propping up the existing unjust state of affairs, then we oppose this ‘far-right’ brand of conservatism because it is unprincipled preservation.

The true political and social distinction for African Americans should not be liberal verses conservative, but principled verses unprincipled.  The principled stance is the ideal position for positive change – the ‘sweet spot’ on which we can best operate.

The unprincipled are not committed to true freedom, justice or equality; they are after dominance and power.  If left unchecked, the unprincipled will be able to use the liberal or conservative cause as a Trojan horse for a corrupt and capricious agenda – people who will redefine and pervert the core principles accordingly.

Unprincipled (‘far-right’) conservatives seek power through preserving what’s left of the old unjust status quo.  This ultimately leads to entrenchment of oppression and permanent marginalization.

Unprincipled (‘far-left’) liberals on the other hand seek dominance and power through establishing a new unjust status quo. This ultimately leads to a government of men, not of laws.  We may be in the favor of the government today, but what recourse will we have if we fall out of favor tomorrow?

No matter which side we choose, if we don’t think critically, we will ultimately lose.

Conclusion

Any current discussion must take into account that today’s current liberal/conservative argument is geared to the dominant culture, not the sub-dominant. While I am encouraged to hear African Americans naming and discussing unfruitful public policy, African Americans should weigh out whether they want to be drawn into this conflict since the dominant culture currently makes it clear that our core concerns are not on their radar.

I, for one, am certainly eager for this discussion.

Fisher Supreme Court Decision: Clarence Thomas on Diversity in Admissions

by Jeneba Ghatt | Jul 1, 2013 | Feature, Headline News | 2 comments

Clarence Thomas seems to think considering race in admissions is unnecessary. Do you agree? (Photo courtesy of Newscom.)

So the United States Supreme Court handed down the opinion to the much-anticipated Fisher v. University of Texas affirmative action case last week.

It was anticlimactic because the court punted. It handed the case back down to the federal court (5th Circuit Court of Appeals) to apply the more stringent standard required when reviewing a challenge to a state benefit when race is a factor, Strict Scrutiny. Rather than consider whether the UT policy was narrowly tailored to serve the state’s compelling interest in advancing diversity in education, the court merely considered whether it had reasonable basis for its policy, then offered the petitioners to rebut that presumption.

It did not rule substantively on the case where a white woman denied admission to the selective university blamed the schools’ affirmative action policy, which considers race among over a dozen other factors when deciding whom to admit among those falling below a minimum auto-admit academic index.

The petitioner in the initial case did not have the qualifications to get admitted under a policy that grants automatic admission to freshman applicants in the top 10% of their high school class in the state. That policy was instituted after the Supreme Court in Hopwood v. Texas overruled the university systems’ previous affirmative action policy.

Knowing that there are large pockets of segregated areas in the state where high schools are almost 100% minorities, the law was a way to ensure racial diversity but without explicitly using the word “race.” It was facially race-neutral but effectively had racial impact.

UT used a holistic index policy for those not meeting a minimum academic index, taking into account a host of factors including military service, honors and awards, extracurricular or community activities, publications, history of overcoming disadvantage, personal essays, leadership qualities, extracurricular activities, community service, family responsibilities, family and school socioeconomic status, whether the applicant comes from a single-parent home, whether they worked during high school, and whether languages other than English are spoken in their home.

Racial minorities have not been the only ones to benefit under that policy; women, a rural white man who was the first in his family to be admitted to college, those who have overcome handicaps or other disabilities, and some from poor backgrounds have benefited as well.

Rather than blame those admitted on one of the other factors over her, Fisher filed suit challenging the inclusion of the racial factor alone, saying it violated the 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause. Ironically, the law was created to protect African Americans from discrimination, but has been used more recently in school-related cases by litigants in reverse discrimination lawsuits.

Many in the African American community are pointing out the concurring opinion of Clarence Thomas, the sole African American on the bench, where he questions the value of considering diversity in college admissions, and states he would overrule the UT policy and even its 10% auto admit policy altogether.

Wowza!

Thomas stated in his opinion that affirmative action could hurt minorities by casting doubt on their accomplishments and putting some students in classes they are ill-prepared to succeed in.

He went on to compare the arguments of affirmative-action supporters with those of segregationists, saying UT, by affirming the need for race-based classifications, is embracing the policies of the Jim Crow South.

“There is no principled distinction between the University’s assertion that diversity yields educational benefits and the segregationists’ assertion that segregation yielded those same benefits,” he wrote.

Although many are upset, I get what Thomas was stating.

Personally, I’ve recognized being given treatment when the perpetrator presumed me to be less qualified or intelligent than even junior members of my peer class. I recall one incident where a competitive partner at the law firm I worked at went out of his way to avoid me getting assigned to his team during a bus-ride trip Trivial Pursuit-type game. At one point during the game, I figured out an answer to a question that had stumped everyone on the bus. The way everyone was surprised and patted me on my back after my correct reply led me to question whether they would have been so “shocked” had a white male gotten the answer right.

I mean, by the time I worked there, I had passed three state bars, earned two law degrees, argued before judges, and gotten published in a legal journal and hired by an exclusive international law firm. What more did I need to do to prove I was “qualified”? Was I going to have to carry the burden of being presumed an affirmative action hire forever?

The answer, sadly, may be yes! Even over the last four years of writing my column, The Politics of Raising Children, for the Washington Times Communities section, I’ve had commenters who disagreed with my position on an issue leave remarks essentially stating that I must have been afforded a column to satisfy some racial quota. Some people will always see your race first, and allow that to determine their response to you or your skills or opinions.

When my husband got admitted into my alma mater, Georgetown University Law, a friend jokingly asked him if I had helped him get into the school, sort of insinuating that he couldn’t have done it on his own. Meanwhile, my husband had scored high enough to get himself into the University of Virginia, University of Michigan, and a score of other top selective law schools. He surpassed their basic academic index for admission and didn’t even require the diversity level consideration. Thus, he is presumed to not have matriculated on his brains alone.

But….

Sometimes it may be worth it.

For me, when I arrived at my law school, I vividly recall several incidents when I was made to feel that my presence assisted my classmates’ understanding of law and its application. Getting the perspectives of someone who dealt with the issues differently because of cultural background and experiences must have enhanced and/or supplemented their learning experience. We should want lawyers who are empathetic to experiences of all their clients, even if their backgrounds differed.

In my constitutional law class, especially when issues related to civil rights came up, as the only or one of two African Americans in a class of 100, I’d feel the heat of all eyes on me as I fumbled to come up with a response to the professor’s question that was substantively right but also reflected the black reaction. In those days, I felt the burden of having to represent my entire race. I’d sweat, get hot under the collar, and panic. What if I said the wrong thing? My answer could shape the perceptions of all in this classroom. At times, when certain topics came up that required the requisite black answer, people would just turn to me even if I didn’t raise my hand or wasn’t called on.

That was unfair pressure and burden. My classmates of European heritage didn’t have to be saddled with having to educate others. They were free to just be and learn. I didn’t have that luxury. I had to represent on behalf of all those who’ve been in my shoes but were not there to explain their experiences.

My “A-ha” Moment

However, I also have vivid recollection of an incident during one criminal procedure class. While discussing the challenges of stop-and-frisk laws and their potential discriminatory impact, the professor asked if it was wrong for unsubstantiated stopping and frisking to continue, given the criminal justice system’s duty and interest in protecting the general public.

One classmate piped up with the opinion that it was only a minor convenience—even if one is innocent of wrongdoing—to be stopped and frisked routinely, because we all, as a society, should be interested in doing their parts to help police find criminals.

Like a rocket grenade, every single one of the five black students in that class of about 150 shot up their hands to reply to such an asinine and clearly misguided thought. I was called on and tried to enunciate how dehumanizing it must be for a person to be stopped daily on their way home from work or school because of their skin and be forced to squat on a sidewalk where their friends and neighbors can see.

It’s a minor inconvenience if neither you nor anyone you know have had to endure such humiliation. I don’t think I was poised and articulated in my response. Fortunately, the professor chimed in and better explained my frustration.

And just like that, it again became apparent the benefits of diversity in classrooms to at least challenge others’ false notions based on their limited experiences.

Because there is a high likelihood that an African American may have had an experience with racial profiling or have known someone who had, they would be able to share anecdotally their experiences and enhance classroom discussions and dialogue and enable others to see perspectives different than their own.

There is value in diversity. Of course, everyone in one race does not think or feel the same way on all issues, but there is a high likelihood that they will have been in similar situations or have cultural associations or awareness governed by their shared experiences colored by race.

While minority students and or management employees may be presumed to be affirmative action admits or hires, some never question others’ presence or advancement the same way.

In the workplace, brown nosers, those with familial or other close relationships with management, or those who play office politics may advance faster in some cases, even when they may not be the most qualified. Plum projects and key assignments may be afforded to those who bear the same physical, racial, or gender characteristics of past success cases because they are presumed to be competent and more than qualified, and given the benefit of the doubt based on subjective internalized preference even before considering qualifications.

In the academic setting, athletic admittees with substantially lower academic qualifications or admittees with a legacy or familial relationship with the school may also be advanced despite their inferior qualifications. Because few people recognize these instances, they often go unchallenged.

Not all value diversity nor recognize its importance in public discourse and education. Those who don’t many times are the same ones who falsely believe in the fallacy of total meritocracy in admissions, hiring, and promotion.

Thus, even if Clarence Thomas had the power to eliminate the 10% rule, I question and wonder what he would have put in its place. It is unclear whether he supports laws and policies that would work to improve the segregated, underperforming, and less academically challenging schools in urban inner cities. You cannot eliminate the solution to a bad problem without at least enunciating an alternative that addresses that problem.